bond_sz_buy_back_em

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds little beyond the source URL and return type, without detailing what data is included, whether it is historical or real-time, or any other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but repetitive, with '深证质押式回购' appearing in both the title and the return line. It is structured as a docstring but lacks a clear, front-loaded sentence stating the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value in more detail. It only states that the return type is a pandas DataFrame and vaguely mentions '深证质押式回购', leaving the column structure and data scope unclear.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as '深证质押式回购' (Shenzhen pledged bond repo) and provides a data source URL, but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'fetch'. It distinguishes from the Shanghai sibling via the name, but the purpose is inferred rather than clearly stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bond_sh_buy_back_em. The description only states the data source and return type, with no contextual hints for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.